A calm seaspace is often required for activities in or about the sea. Examples of places where such activities occur include fisheries, harbors, beaches, oil rigs, and others. Since weather and sea conditions do not always oblige these sea related activities, both floating and stationary breakwaters have been devised to calm the sea's tempestuous nature.
Typical of floating breakwater arrangements for calming the sea are the Matsudaira U.S. Pat. No. 3,969,901, the Magill U.S. Pat. No. 2,658,350, and the Chenoweth U.S. Pat. No. 3,426,537.
Matsudaira shows a central float with front and rear barriers joined by connecting members. The main feature of the Matsudaira invention is the central float. Due to this configuration, the barrier walls cannot be formed of a strong material, nor can they be formed in a size sufficient to give the breakwater a significant depth beneath the waves. Matsudaira also requires a complicated anchoring system to maintain breakwater inertia against wave movement.
Magill shows a mounting structure with a series of upstanding laterally spaced baffle members carried by the mounting structure. The baffles are disposed in a substantially parallel relation with an adjacent portion of the shoreline and have a height substantially equal to that of the maximum waves that occur outward to the unit. The baffles are positioned in the mounting structure so that the medial portions thereof are disposed at substantially the normal level of the body of water. Thus, the Magill breakwater extends substantially above the water line and it is exposed to pounding by waves and other sea stresses. As a result, the arrangement of fittings would soon work loose, necessitating frequent repair and maintenance. Apart from the excessive wear on such a design and the concomitant need for frequent repair, the wave action is not effectively abated. For effective wave control, the breakwater should extend substantially below the surface of the water rather than half below and half above the surface. Furthermore, the flimsy baffle arrangement provides very little breakwater inertia against wave motion. Rather, the Magill breakwater would tend to bob like a cork.
Chenoweth shows a raft. Aside from the time-consuming carpentry required to build the raft, it is questionable that much wave breaking effect could be achieved by the raft. Waves of significant size would tend to wash completely over the raft or bob the raft up like a float without much abatement in wave action. Due to the constant battering of the sea, such a raft would require frequent repairs; it would also be difficult and time-consuming to assemble and disassemble the raft for transportation.
Similar to the Chenoweth raft is the Gonzalez invention, U.S. Pat. No. 3,779,192. Gonzalez shows a concrete slab under which a floating material has been placed and which floating material is secured to the slab by a wooden underframe. Gonzalez and Chenoweth both show rafts with a horizontal orientation. Wave action is substantially a vertical phenomenon; the most effective wave control is accomplished by a unit having a similar orientation.
Floating breakwaters are not often permanent fixtures to the seaspace they control, so they should be readily transportable. Breakwaters are often used in out of the way places so they should be easily assembled at the site of use, preferably with locally obtainable materials. The prior art shows breakwaters that are either difficult to assemble and disassemble, that require skilled labor which is not often available near the site of installation, that require specially manufactured components, and that are not particularly effective as wave control devices. Some of the prior art breakwaters have all these disadvantages, all of them have some.